get_portfolio_valuation

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description states that the tool returns current total value and optionally history when 'from' is given, which is useful behavioral context. However, it does not disclose other behavioral traits such as whether cash is included by default, how interval affects the history, or the response format. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full transparency burden and only partially fulfills it.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core function and followed by a concrete use case. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundant or filler content.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a tool with four parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides a clear purpose and use case, which is sufficient for basic invocation. It does not describe the response shape or the full behavior of history, but the schema fills in parameter-level details. The description is reasonably complete, though not exhaustive.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100% with detailed descriptions for all four parameters. The description itself adds minimal parameter-specific meaning, only referencing 'from' without further detail. Baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema already fully documents the parameters.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's function: to get the current total value of one or more depots, and optionally historical value when 'from' is set. It uses specific verb+resource phrasing ('Get the current total value') and the use-case phrase 'what is my portfolio worth (today / over time)?' distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_account_balances or get_portfolio_allocation.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly provides a usage context: 'Use this for what is my portfolio worth (today / over time)?' This tells an agent when to invoke the tool. However, it does not mention alternatives or exclusions, so it lacks the full comparative guidance seen in the highest-scoring examples.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.